Agenda item

The Chair noted that, prior to the meeting, members had visited a number of sites and had an opportunity to view and walk parts of some of the application routes.

The Committee proceeded to consider the report of the Corporate Director, Regeneration and Economic Development and the Head of Legal & Democratic Services regarding applications to modify the Definitive Map and Statement of Public Rights of Way by the addition of byways.

The Public Rights of Way Officer (Audrey Christie) reviewed the background to the applications, which had originally been made between 1992 and 1995 (when 8 applications had been lodged but 2 had subsequently been dealt with, leaving 6 to be considered today). The application routes were across open moorland areas of Teesdale and Weardale – locations were detailed in the report and on plans/maps appended to it, together with copies of various background documents, including extracts from Inclosure Awards and responses from consultees. It was noted that each application would require individual consideration. 

The Legal Adviser explained the legal framework for consideration of the applications and emphasised that the Council had to make decisions in accordance with the law, and in particular with the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. She noted that paragraph 14 of the report should read as follows:

'Therefore it is important to decide whether or not these applications were properly ‘made’ and meet all the provisions of paragraph 1 of Schedule 14 to the 1981 Act. The effect of Section 67(1) of the NERC Act means that if a right of way for mechanically propelled vehicles can  be established on the documentary evidence presented but the application is not properly ‘made’, then the application for byway status would fail with the appropriate status being that of restricted byway.'

She explained that it would be unlawful to take into account issues such as the suitability or desirability of the applications. She referred to a recent case determined by the Court of Appeal, which had prompted the Council to seek Counsel’s advice with regard to these applications; the advice was appended to the report.

The Public Rights of Way Officer (Audrey Christie) advised members of the recent receipt of a request from a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of some of the landowners involved (objectors to the applications) to defer consideration to enable them to obtain Counsel’s opinion as to whether the applications were properly ‘made’. However, members were advised that all parties had been given ample opportunity to consider the officer’s report and the legal opinion received by the Council. On this basis members agreed that they would proceed to consider the applications at this meeting.

Members then proceeded to consider each of the six applications individually and had an opportunity to comment and ask questions of officers. Each report detailed the proposed route, considered the documentary evidence and any evidence on the ground and outlined the objections/comments received. In each case the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included maps/plans and photographs of the route.

Councillor Shuttleworth recorded his opposition to each application on the basis that creating byways would be detrimental to wildlife habitats, damage would be caused to the surface of the land and there would be a detrimental impact on the heather grouse moor.